51ÁÔÆæ

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed 51ÁÔÆæ the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the UNJSPF. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with UNPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the UNDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the UNDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual does not limit an incumbent¡¯s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant...

The UNDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process¡ªsuch as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post¡ªare normally not under consideration. Administration¡¯s discretion to define the...

When joining UNOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for UN purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by UNOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

UNDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. UNDT held that the Application was not res judicata. UNDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. UNDT/NBI/2013/014). UNDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant¡¯s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to another UNDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as a consequence of the UN Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as UNDT had correctly determined. UNAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. UNAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the UNDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, UNAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that UNDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. UNAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to UNDT for his witness to be called. UNAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the UNDT judgment and that it was not clear that UNDT had considered that evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by UNDT for not calling the witness. UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

UNAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. UNAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. UNAT noted that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, at the time UNICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration¡¯s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. UNAT held that there was no reason to reverse UNDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...